BACKGROUND: Nurses have not been formally trained in assessing the oral status of patients in intensive care units, and no oral care protocols for these patients are available. OBJECTIVES: To assess the oral status of patients in an intensive care unit, evaluate the effects of a defined oral care protocol on the oral health status of patients in an intensive care unit, and compare oral assessments of a dental hygienist with those of intensive care nurses. METHODS: A nonequivalent comparison group, longitudinal design with repeated measures was used. In phase 1, oral assessment data on the comparison group were collected by a dental hygienist. In phase 2, nurses were instructed in oral assessment and an oral care protocol. In phase 3, the oral care protocol was implemented in the treatment group, and oral assessment data were collected separately by the dental hygienist and by nurses. RESULTS: The mean inflammation score was significantly lower (t test P = .03) in the treatment group (mean, 3.9; SEM, 3.0) than in the comparison group (mean, 12.4; SEM, 2.2). Although not significant, the mean scores of the treatment group were also lower than those of the comparison group on scales of candidiasis, purulence, bleeding, and plaque. Correlations between scores for individual items on the oral assessment tool obtained by the dental hygienist and those obtained by nurses were all greater than 0.6386. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a well-developed oral care protocol by bedside nurses can improve oral health of patients in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Use of lower backrest positions occurs frequently and is a factor in the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia. OBJECTIVES: To determine the usual bed elevation and backrest position in a medical intensive care unit and their relationship to hemodynamic status and enteral feeding. METHODS: Data were collected in a 12-bed medical respiratory intensive care unit for 2 months. A protractor was used to measure the elevation of the head of the bed. Hemodynamic status was defined by systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial blood pressure measurements retrieved from each patient's flow sheet. RESULTS: The sample included 347 measurements of 52 patients. Mean backrest elevation was 22.9 degrees, and 86% of patients were supine. Backrest position differed significantly (P = .005) among nursing shifts (days, evenings, nights) but not for systolic (r = -0.04, P = .49), diastolic (r = 0.01, P = .83), or mean arterial blood pressure (r = -0.01, P = .84). Backrest elevation did not differ significantly between patients who were receiving enteral feedings and patients who were not (P = .23) or between patients receiving intermittent versus continuous nutrition (P = .22). CONCLUSIONS: Use of higher levels of backrest elevation (> or = 30 degrees) is minimal and is not related to use of enteral feeding or to hemodynamic status. The rationale for using lower backrest positions for critically ill patients may be based on convenience, the patient's comfort, or usual patterns in the unit. However, the dangers of supine positioning and its relationship to aspiration and ventilator-associated pneumonia should not be minimized.